PEOPLE v. SPENCER (2025)

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Arthur J. Cooperman, J.), rendered October 29, 2002, convicting him of sexual abuse in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his conviction is unpreserved for appellate review, as his generalized motions to dismiss at trial were not specifically directed at the deficiency now being argued (see CPL 470.05[2];  People v. Hawkins, 11 N.Y.3d 484, 491–492, 872 N.Y.S.2d 395, 900 N.E.2d 946;  People v. Patterson, 237 A.D.3d 859, 859, 231 N.Y.S.3d 596).  In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932), it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1;  People v. Saravia, 239 A.D.3d 1002, 1003, 239 N.Y.S.3d 152).  Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15[5];  People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d at 349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672;  People v. Patterson, 237 A.D.3d at 860, 231 N.Y.S.3d 596).  Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 633, 643–644, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902;  People v. Saravia, 239 A.D.3d at 1003, 239 N.Y.S.3d 152).

The defendant's contention that he was deprived of a fair trial by certain remarks made by the prosecutor during summation is, for the most part, unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2];  People v. Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 911, 912, 828 N.Y.S.2d 274, 861 N.E.2d 89;  People v. Escalona, 237 A.D.3d 968, 970, 231 N.Y.S.3d 607).  In any event, the defendant's contention is without merit.  The majority of the challenged remarks made by the prosecutor during summation were within the bounds of permissible rhetorical comment (see People v. Ashwal, 39 N.Y.2d 105, 109, 383 N.Y.S.2d 204, 347 N.E.2d 564), responsive to arguments made in defense counsel's summation (see People v. Escalona, 237 A.D.3d at 970, 231 N.Y.S.3d 607), or constituted fair comment on the evidence (see People v. Ashwal, 39 N.Y.2d at 109, 383 N.Y.S.2d 204, 347 N.E.2d 564;  People v. Escalona, 237 A.D.3d at 970, 231 N.Y.S.3d 607).  To the extent that any of the challenged remarks were improper, they were not so pervasive or egregious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial (see People v. Escalona, 237 A.D.3d at 970, 231 N.Y.S.3d 607;  People v. Miller, 229 A.D.3d 724, 726, 216 N.Y.S.3d 46).

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the record before this Court is sufficient to permit meaningful appellate review of his contention that the Supreme Court erred in denying his application for youthful offender treatment (cf.  People v. Lefler, 300 A.D.2d 1099, 1099, 751 N.Y.S.2d 809).  Moreover, upon consideration of the reasons the Supreme Court placed on the record at sentencing, we find that the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendant youthful offender status (see People v. Forero, 235 A.D.3d 896, 896–897, 227 N.Y.S.3d 677;  People v. Taylor, 302 A.D.2d 480, 480, 754 N.Y.S.2d 893;  People v. Cruickshank, 105 A.D.2d 325, 333, 484 N.Y.S.2d 328, affd sub nom.  People v. Dawn Maria C., 67 N.Y.2d 625, 499 N.Y.S.2d 663, 490 N.E.2d 530).

The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.

DILLON, J.P., IANNACCI, DOWLING and MCCORMACK, JJ., concur.